You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor

Posted on Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 5:57 a.m.

Enrollment trends: Out-of-state students form 42.6 percent of University of Michigan's freshman class

By Kellie Woodhouse

Nearly 43 percent of University of Michigan freshmen hail from out-of-state.

Joe Tobianski | AnnArbor.com

The number of out-of-state students at University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus has risen over the past decade.

Out-of-state and international students now comprise 42.6 percent of this fall's freshman class, outpacing non-resident enrollment levels of recent history.

The ratio represents an uptick of 2 percent from the year before and 7.1 percent from fall 2009, when 35.5 percent of freshmen were non-Michigan residents.

Non-resident enrollment levels from fall 2002 and fall 2009 were similar, rising just 0.3 percent in seven years. During that period, however, annual non-resident enrollment fluctuated between 34 percent and 39.5 percent.

Students enjoy warm fall weather at the University of Michigan on Wednesday, October 24.

"We were able to achieve a goal of admitting a slightly larger number of students from out of state."

Over the past decade, the size of U-M's freshman class has grown significantly, increasing 19 percent since 2002. An analysis of enrollment figures shows that the vast majority of growth has come from outside Michigan.

For example, in 2002 U-M enrolled 1,827 non-resident freshmen, 801 fewer out-of-state students than this year. Also in 2002 overall freshmen enrollment levels were at 5,187 — 984 students fewer than this year. Of the enrollment difference between those two years, roughly 81 percent is comprised of non-resident students.

Although the recent increase in non-resident enrollment was deliberate, Spencer — who has sat on a university task force titled "Marketing U-M to Non-resident Undergraduate Applicants" — was mum on whether the uptick would continue.

"I don't know that we have made any official statement about where we are going with that," he said.

"As a state, if you look at all 15 universities, we are underperforming in terms of our out-of-state student population," she said on May 31, during the 2012 Mackinac Policy Conference. "That is, we have capacity, and these students come paying the full freight. They actually add tremendously to the economy in the state of Michigan."

Non-resident freshmen pay $39,122, or $26,118 more than resident freshmen. Additionally, out-of-state students received less per-student university-sponsored financial aid than residents.

Coleman speaks with state business leaders in May. During the talk, she urged for increases in non-resident enrollment

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

During a decade of declining state funding, the additional revenue brought by non-resident freshmen is budget-friendly.

The nonprofit organization Business Leaders for Michigan estimates that raising Michigan’s out-of-state enrollment to that of comparable universities outside the state could net $200 million in increased tuition over four years.

Yet the issue of non-residents enrolling in universities that are partially taxpayer funded is a controversial one. Former U-M regent, and current GOP regent candidate, Dan Horning says Michigan's flagship public college is "letting too many out-of-state students in.

"The focus on recruiting out-of-state students has reached its tipping point and it's at the detriment of our qualified in-state students," he said.

Enrollment, however, can be difficult to gauge ahead of time. Although officials may aim for a goal, results can vary. The number, and demographics, of admitted students who enroll fluctuates year to year.

In fall 2000, out-of-state first-year enrollment was 41.6 percent (the second-highest non-resident rate in recent history). The next year it dropped to 36 percent and declined again the following year.

AnnArbor.com was able to review freshmen enrollment figures dating back to 1998 and, since then, no class experienced a higher out-of-state rate than the fall 2012 class.

Over the past decade out-of-state applications have risen, but when the Common Application was introduced three years ago —allowing students to apply to many states using a form application— they spiked even further.

For fall 2012, U-M admitted more than 15,500 students. Acceptance rates are generally higher among in-state students than their out-of-state counterparts.

"You have to admit more out-of-state students in order to get one student," Spencer said."The yields for in-state students are in the range of 66 to 67 percent, and for out-of-state students it's 21 to 23 percent."

As the school hones its marketing to non-resident students, U-M has also tried generating more interest from residents. Spencer said U-M visited more Michigan high schools last year than ever before.

"How do we balance [more non-resident applications] with a decreasing number of students from high schools in Michigan?" he asked. "The volume itself [is an issue]. There are larger numbers of students graduating in high school from places like Texas and California, whereas in the Midwest numbers are going in the other direction."

Interestingly, recent data from the university suggest that in-state students drop out less than out-of-state students. Non-residents, on the other hand, graduate quicker, data show.

Comments

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.

I think it is extremely important to state the acceptance rates for in-state vs out-of-state since it seems that a lot of people on this board think that non residents have the advantage.
In-state acceptance rate: 53%
Out-of-state acceptance rate: 30%
The University of Michigan still favors residents over non-residents, and by quite a significant margin.

Arborcomment

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 2:17 a.m.

And if anyone thinks the admissions department does not have a statistician and a formula for x number of non-resident acceptances, followed by degree of pursuit, offers, etc. equals their desired goal of say around 40% actual enrollments and daddy's checkbook open, they are deluding themselves.

a2girl

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:25 a.m.

Hmm... I think this is a question for a statistician. If the following is true: &quot;U-M received the bulk of 2012 freshmen applications from non-resident students. Roughly 32,500 non-residents applied to the Ann Arbor school, versus nearly 9,800 residents, according to Spencer,&quot; then does that not change the perceived advantage?

Max

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:11 a.m.

As usual, these people like competition only when it serves them ...

Frustrated in A2

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1 a.m.

Pack up the school and move it to New York and privatize it Lol!

Frustrated in A2

Sat, Oct 27, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.

I'd still be here in A2 and happy!

Max

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:09 a.m.

Man, that would be great place to live with the likes of you only!

JackAz

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.

The data for the Graduate and Professional Schools should be made public. Many programs have few if any Michigan students and a minority of US Citizens. A discussion on using State of Michigan funds to support programs with few if any Michigan students would be interesting.

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 11:22 p.m.

I would love to see the #'s and scores/grades of accepted students vs. rejected students by Michigan high school too. Be brave and publish the truth!
People do lie about ethnicity-so why even include it. Also, how many kids are first generation college? Why should this matter? We heard that these people are given an extra look.
Would love to know why so many faculty's and high level staff member's kids get in and who is in the Bridge program--clearly the who's who of Ann Arbor.

a2girl

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:28 a.m.

I thought the &quot;Bridge Program&quot; was for deserving students coming out of school districts that are not as well funded as districts like Ann Arbor in need of an academic boost? Holy Toledo! Is that the new back door into Michigan?

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.

Attach all the money to the student for college students so we can go wherever we would like! Vouchers for College. Then Michigan would not get any money from the state an everyone would be happy. Maybe this would force U of M to think about their large tuition increases every year.

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.

Well, if you go to the University of Michigan and are a Michigan resident, guess what, you get In-State tuition-that is why people are upset. It is not always about Michigan--it is about the students! Where is the customer in this? Attach the money to the student so I can take my In-state tuition dollars and apply them to any college in the nation and then Michigan can take any student you would like! Why doesn't U of M do that--Vouchers for college!

Max

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.

&quot;You do not get in if 1.) white 2.) male
3.) Christian 4.) have anything less than a 3.9 GPA, three AP classes, a 30 or higher on the ACT and a often made up list of &quot;extra curriculars&quot; tantamount to superstar status.&quot;
You must be kidding. There is a huge affirmative action program in place -- called gender equity -- that disproportionately gets white males in while much more academically qualified women are not admitted in order to keep the male/female ration 50:50 more or less.
The university does not care whether you are Christian or not by the way ....

ahi

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:34 p.m.

Not kidding. Just dumb.

Arborcomment

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 9:59 p.m.

What we have here folks is a University &quot;IN&quot; Michigan, not the University &quot;OF&quot; Michigan. Time for a choice to be made. Contact your state legislator and institute what the people of Virginia demanded when their flagship school was becoming cash cow out-of-state heavy and in-state restricted.
Set a percentage limit of out-of-state students. If UM exceeds it, they lose State funding. Continue to exceed it, then begin to tax for property and services. If UM continues with their out-of-state addiction, they have two choices, turn private or increase class sizes.

Arborcomment

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.

In comparisons to other university systems, UM lags behind in efforts to reduce cost. Compare what the University of Maryland has done as part of a statewide basis to what Michigan touts - anemic. The bulk of UM's savings is through reduction and/or changes to health benefits and retirement - much more to be done.
For example: Three seperate security departments at UM (soon to be one with the little thumb drive incident). The salary of just one of the departments, your Police Chief (when you keep one) - reported at around $180k. One of the highest paid police chiefs in the State for a force of what? Less than 100 uniformed officers? And of course, there must be a deputy police chief, and a deputy deputy police chief, etc. etc. etc.
As I'm a former UM employee, UM grad, and have a parent that's a Professor Emeritus, we can go into other departments if you like - but enough of picking on Blue. Let's move south and highlight the tens of thousands of dollars the Ohio University System gave to their head and President of OSU - for his &quot;signature&quot; bow ties...
Occupy was on the wrong street.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.

&quot;Number 5 never seems to be mentioned for some reason.&quot;
I didn't mention &quot;number 5&quot; because it is obvious, it is already stressed at the university and it won't come close to solving the problem. The university has been cutting costs significantly every year, but it still can't deal with hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue from the state. As, I've already pointed out, the university has lost around $250,000,000 in purchasing power due to state funding declines over the last decade.
With regards to cost cutting, U-M has done pretty good. The University of Michigan saves 91 million annually due to the changes in employee benefits, 5.2 million dollars annually due to reduced energy consumption, 7 million through consolidation of IT, and several more million through other reductions. While this is very good, it still leaves a gigantic gap in the finances of the university. This is where numbers 1-4 come into play.

Arborcomment

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 2:32 a.m.

There are five options Evan.
1. Increase tuition for everybody.
2. Increase the number of non-residents.
3. Decrease enrollment.
4. Reduce quality.
5. Institute effective cost cutting measures, effectively use resources, prioritize spending on capital projects.
Number 5 never seems to be mentioned for some reason.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 2:15 a.m.

&quot;Evan, you cite &quot;acceptance rates&quot;. The article cites actual enrollment percentage. Two different numbers. It appears you don't like the &quot;facts&quot; cited in the article and you're free to bring in your own - still doesn't change the story.&quot;
My number were derived from the numbers in this story by some very very simple calculations.
&quot;And of course since tuition at UM only seems to go one way (up), following your logic, a continuing increase of out-of-state cash cows will be needed to keep the same number of in-state students' tuition subsidized. What's your favorite enrollment percentage Evan?&quot;
Tuition goes up at Michigan because of declining state support and inflation. I don't know the ideal IS - OOS ratio, I'm only defending the ratio that U of M currently has. Obviously the ideal situation would be that the state starts to support their universities and contribute more than just 7% of the operating budget. Obviously this isn't very likely (at least in the near future), so the university really only has a few options when it comes to finances.
1. Increase tuition for everyone
2. Increase the non-resident ratio
3. Decrease enrollment
4. Reduce quality
None of these are particularly appealing, and I don't know what the ideal option or combination of options would be.
&quot;How about a novel idea and trying to control spending? According to a Cornell study, college tuition costs have risen faster than health (by almost double) and energy (by almost triple) costs since 1985 - and no, it is not all because of reduced State aid.&quot;
It's due to inflation and reduced state aid. The actual cost, in inflation adjusted dollars, to educate a student has remained flat for a very long time. The source of that money has changed quite a bit. The state used to pay for about 70% of the expenses, it now only covers 7%.

Arborcomment

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

Evan, you cite &quot;acceptance rates&quot;. The article cites actual enrollment percentage. Two different numbers. It appears you don't like the &quot;facts&quot; cited in the article and you're free to bring in your own - still doesn't change the story.
And of course since tuition at UM only seems to go one way (up), following your logic, a continuing increase of out-of-state cash cows will be needed to keep the same number of in-state students' tuition subsidized. What's your favorite enrollment percentage Evan?
How about a novel idea and trying to control spending? According to a Cornell study, college tuition costs have risen faster than health (by almost double) and energy (by almost triple) costs since 1985 - and no, it is not all because of reduced State aid.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.

In-state acceptance rate: 53%
Out-of-state acceptance rate: 30%
Michigan prefers in-state students and there is no addiction to out-of-state students.
Anyways, the out-of-state residents actually keep tuition for in-state residents down. You can calculate what tuition would have to be if we had only in-state students and it would actually be $10,000 more than it currently is.
Sorry for bringing facts into this, it's quite obvious you don't like them.

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:55 p.m.

Great. I was going for attaching the $$ to the student so they could go out of state. This is good too!

Shel

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.

You can talk all you want about this being good for the University, etc. Yet after the dust all settles, we all know it is all about the money. I can understand why not many Michigan kids apply to the U, word has gotten around that it is nearly impossible to get admitted if you are 1.) white 2.) male
3.) Christian 4.) have anything less than a 3.9 GPA, three AP classes, a 30 or higher on the ACT and a often made up list of &quot;extra curriculars&quot; tantamount to superstar status. Also, Michigan is not known for scholarship assistance, whereas many of the smaller private schools will help with tuition. I am a graduate of U-M and so are 9 other members of my family. I know for a fact, I wouldn't be accepted today. While I love the University on many levels, I mourn for the students who are discriminated against because of their residence.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:29 a.m.

Wait, are you actually serious?
Seriously?
1.
In-state acceptance rate: 53%
Out of state acceptance rate: 30%
2.
Michigan has more white students than almost any other public university in america (~75%)
3.
The application doesn't even require you to put down your religion.
4.
There are 10% more males than females
5.
More than half of enrolled students had less than 3.9 (3.8 is the average)
almost half of enrolled students had less than a 30 of the ACT (average is 31).

Laura Jones

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.

Nicely said.

WWBoDo

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:20 p.m.

What if I am in-state and willing to pay out-of-state tuition. Do I up my chances of admission. (and agree to help the economy by spending money as if I am from out-of-state)?

Evan Smith

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

In-state students still have an advantage in admissions. The acceptance rate for residents is about 50% as opposed to 30% for non residents.

rusty shackelford

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.

To anyone complaining about this number, keep in mind that UM is perhaps the only institution that attracts a large number of intelligent, capable people (undergraduates and graduate students) to the state. Many of them don't stay, but that has to be blamed on the rest of the state rather than UM. Universities are an inherently temporary part of one's life.

Heidi Koester

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.

The amazing thing to me is this: &quot;Less than 10 percent of high school graduates in the state applied to U-M.&quot; Less than 10 percent?? Apply to get an education at one of the best universities in the world? For in-state tuition?
Any insights into why the number of in-state applicants is so low?

harry

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.

That doesn't surprise me. Michigan is a great school.
&quot;Vote no on Proposal 2&quot;

marathonsy

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.

There are really two issues here. One is financial. The other is moral. The financial issue is a simple math problem as far as the U is concerned. They have an annual operating budget. The state gives them a less than 20% of that budget. The rest is made up from other sources, like endowments. The biggest percentage is tuition. As the article states, out-of-state students are worth 3 times as much as in-state students. And those nice new buildings don't pay for themselves! In reality this out-of-state money is hugely beneficial to both Ann Arbor and the state's economy, and is why A2 has remained a boom town, even as Michigan's economy has suffered throughout the years. That money pays for construction workers salaries, teachers, nurses and then goes back into the surrounding A2 business community. The people eating in all the nice downtown restaurants on Main St are by and large not students. They are residence of the area who all benefits from this out of state money.
The only negative is the moral issue of the number of -in-state Michigan residents who are accepted to UM annually. From Ted Spencer's own math, they extend only approximately 5,000 offer letters to in-state Michigan HS students from the 10K that apply to get approx 3,5000 in-state freshmen acceptances. But UM sends over 13,000 offer letters to out-of-staters to get aprox 2,700 acceptances. What this most certainly tells you is that the number of in-state students is firmly capped based on the budget, not based on qualifications for admission. Is the 13,001st out-of-state student more qualified than the 5001st state of Michigan applicant? I suspect not. But as Ted Spencer pointed out, they are worth $26K more annually than in-state residents.
So the real question for the state: is it fair to Michigan residents that only 3% of annual in-state HS grads are admitted to the top public university in the State or should that number be higher? The math is simple. The morality is not.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:33 a.m.

@WWBoDo
The acceptance rate for in-state students is 76% higher than out-of-state students. Residents have the advantage and by quite a significant margin.

WWBoDo

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:26 p.m.

Seems as though all you have to do, if you want to improve your chances of going to UM is to move to Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, India, China, etc. Or, perhaps, check a box on the application that says I am willing to pay out of state tuition despite the fact that I live in Michigan.

aamom

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.

Very good post marathonsy. It sums up the internal war waging in my mind as I read these posts. On the one hand, these are tough economic times and the U needs to think like a business and make the best financial decisions it can for itself. On the other hand, I really hope my kid can get in in a few years!

ManA2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.

Marthonsy - good, thoughtful post. There is one thing I can add. Based purely on the numbers, the 13,001st out of state student does indeed have higher test scores and grades than the 5,001st in state student. I think it is by a fair amount actually.

Mr. Me

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

Michigan is lucky the state government has allowed UM to keep its finances in order -- look at the problems lately at the University of California system or the University of Virginia. Michigan has several other very good public universities that exist to serve local students.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:38 a.m.

The Michigan legislature (in recent years) has done nothing good for our universities. Michigan is 48th out of 50 in terms of support for higher education. Even with the financial crisis in California, their universities are still getting much more money than ours.

As a pround U of M alum, I am dismayed over the shrinking in state student population. I agree that the University would rather obtain the higher out of state tuition costs. I do not like the different acceptance standards of in-state versus out of state.
My issue is what kind of alumni do these international students become? Will they donate to U of M as pround alumni. Many in my circles think not. The where will they work is another. This is not about U of M being an all white male university as it was around 1950.
While the international and out of state students may be more affluent and bolster the local economy, it equally as important to consider their post graduation location and ties to Michigan.
I for one, would like to think U of M is at the ceiling in terms of out of state and international student population.

a2girl

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.

&quot;Qualified Michigan students who apply to U-M get in, Spencer says&quot; Really? Then why do I know so many in-state students who were given rejection letters that stated that although they were &quot;qualified&quot;, there were too many applicants for Michigan to grant them admission and that they should go elsewhere and apply as a transfer student after their sophomore year?

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.

I think Ted Spencer should answer this!

a2girl

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.

Aggatt - Maybe, but that doesn't explain why some get in with lower grades/scores than those that are rejected. Obviously there is more to being &quot;qualified&quot; than those factors, but any way you cut it, there is a problem with admissions and most people I talk to, as taxpayers, residents of Ann Arbor, or faculty/staff at the University, are not happy about it.

aggatt

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.

because they weren't actually qualified and the University says that in their letters so their feelings don't get too hurt.

Craig Lounsbury

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.

I know people in similar circumstances. The truth is the University will put any spin that suites them on most any issue of controversy.

Craig Lounsbury

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.

Just a point of fact...We the people of the State of Michigan collectively own the University. It does NOT matter how much or how little tax money versus endowment and contributions cover the operating costs. We still own the University.
Think of a landlord who's tenants cover all the costs of the building they live in. The building still belongs to the landlord. Even if the landord hires a manager and moves across the country the landlord still owns the building.
we own the University.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.

&quot;There are many in-state high school students who are very qualified to compete academically at the University who don't get in because an out of State student pays more.&quot;
They don't get in because there are 42,000 applicants for a class of 6,000. Of course not every good student is going to get in.
The fact of the matter is that U of M gives a very large advantage to in-state students when it comes to admissions. Whether or not you believe it, the acceptance rate for in-state students is a whopping 76% higher than that of out-of-state residents.
So, to respond to your statement. You're simply wrong. Michigan DOES NOT give an advantage to out-of-state students simply because they come with more money. Out-of-state students have increased their presence at U-M because they accounted for more than 75% of the applications to the university.

Craig Lounsbury

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.

It has a lot to do with the conversation. Suppose your that landlord with a manager of your apartment and you wan to rent a unit but the manager says no. There are many in-state high school students who are very qualified to compete academically at the University who don't get in because an out of State student pays more. Add to that the University has the 7th largest endowment of all Universities in America (the only ones ahead are private) and its fair to ask if the out of state percentage needs to be as high as it is.

Evan Smith

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.

Yes, the university is owned by the state of Michigan, but that has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. Our conversation is about finances, and frankly the university should have done this earlier. If the state doesn't allocate enough money to operate this university, U-M has no other option but to get the money it needs from other revenue sources such as out-of-state resident tuition. I agree that this is not ideal, but it is the only realistic option the university has.

ManA2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.

Business Leaders for Michigan put out a pretty balanced recommendation on Higher Education funding in the State that incorporates a view on Out of State students:
http://www.businessleadersformichigan.com/storage/Handout%20-%20HE%20Proposal%20facts.pdf

brimble

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.

Let's step back for a moment: as a state, we benefit when people move here, and suffer when they move away. We want to attract highly-skilled and educated people, the sorts of folks who can contribute to the economic and cultural future of the state.
But not the students who can become those people, and who will pump huge dollars into the local and state economy at the same time? Their money isn't any good? The opportunity for Michigan businesses to employ them and keep them here after graduation isn't any good?

Laura Jones

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.

I am not sure that the repeating rebuttal of the percentage of revenues contributed by the State of Michigan has any relevance.
It is important to have a diverse student body. It is also important to remember who you are. The Organic Act of March 18, 1837 was a State of Michigan act that created the University. In as much as any institution is built on its history, the investment of the people of the State of Michigan is anything but insignificant.
Does the U have a primary mission to serve the population of Michigan above other populations? Is that obligation different on the graduate level than the under graduate? I think the answers are yes and yes. How that divides up, however, is hard to categorize into a definitive number.
Wish I had the answer.

WWBoDo

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.

Answer is to eliminate the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition and cut the UM off of tax dollars.

ManA2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.

This is very healthy for the University. Inflation adjusted, the state has cut funding for public Universities in half over the past decade. There was finally a very small increase this year. They've made the tough decisions on benefits and a lot of costs. Still more can be done, but the entire increase in tuition at public Universities in Michigan can be tied to decreases in state funding. It is exactly dollar for dollar.
We need to get the state to properly fund Higher Ed again, and have the Universities continue to meet their commitment to efficiencies.
In the meantime, Michigan's public Universities - in total - have the 2nd lowest out of state enrollment of students of the 50 states. It's a big opportunity to help fund the whole system.

GoNavy

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

It's all about the money.

Nick Danger

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.

I have seen too many local students with High Grade point averages and good SATs denied admission into Michigan. Mean while the freshmen class is flooded with out of state students.What is wrong with this picture? Why hasn't the board of regents or Mary Sue stepped in to correct this injustice?
Michigan residents taxes pay the bills for the U why not take care of the many qualified Michigan students first

A Voice of Reason

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.

The State of Michigan citizens has contributed and build this University for the benefit of its students. To suddenly shun the tax payer investment is an insult. This is not based on a budget, but a long-term investment. We own this school for the benefit of our citizens. In addition, its graduates, mostly from the State of Michigan, have donated to this university so the state investment can be less.
Again, provide vouchers to the students in Michigan so they have a national choice and can afford other options.

Mike

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.

The supreme court ruled in UM's favor that they could discriminate, that is a fact. Don't complain, just work a little harder and give a little more and everything will be OK..................The board of regents and president already stepped in to help create the injustice.

alan

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 8:58 p.m.

I was off. I was using operating revenue, not total revenue. State appropriations for fiscal year 2011 accounted for $361M of the $6.9B total revenue, or only 5%. I have no idea where you got your numbers Johnny, these are from the 2011 consolidated financial statements.

WWBoDo

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.

Eliminate State funding, have a uniform tuition amount regardless of residency and get on with it. Take in the best and eliminate the rest. Seems easy.

ManA2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.

Alan and GoNAvy - you are both right. It is around 16% of tuition only, but I think it is closer to 7-8% of the total operating budget. 50 years ago, the state put in 80% of tuition dollars.

johnnya2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.

Before the U started recruiting more heavily out of state the state portion of the budget was about 25%. It is now under 17%. The U is helping the STATE budget by bringing out of state students in. The U can make these decisions CONSTITUTIONALLY. I would also point out that out of state students bring out of state money, which actually HELPS the state and local economy. If the U took ONLY Michigan students, it would just be redistribution of the money from one state resident, to another state resident (business). This state fell behind on that many years ago and is just now realizing that marketing their resources is the key to a better economy. Texas and Alaska have done it for decades. They sell their natural resource to the rest of the country and make a LOT of money (oil). Michigan does nto have oil, so they neeed to sell travel, education and other things.

GoNavy

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

A &quot;high GPA&quot; means nothing - it's a relative comparison and can fluctuate wildly based on dozens of factors.
A &quot;good SAT&quot; just doesn't cut it anymore.
@ Alan - the number is closer to 16%. You can confirm that by referencing U of M's published annual budget statements.

alan

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.

State appropriations account for only about 7-8% of the university budget.

aabikes

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:56 p.m.

Out of those 42.6% of out-of-state students, how many actually take jobs in Michigan after graduating?

Fordie

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.

I don't know an answer to that question, but I would imagine that they are certainly more likely to stay in Michigan after graduation if they attend U-M than if they didn't.

aabikes

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.

Fair enough. I'm not dissing the fact they are coming and spending. But what about staying and spending?
I think that SHOULD be important for the only state to lose population in the 2010 census. And even during their enrollment, I would imagine many students retain their voter registration in their home state? As well as their bank accounts, etc.

johnnya2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.

Since those 42.6% are incoming freshman that is a figure that has no answer. Also, the fact that they already spent a BOATLOAD of money in the Michigan economy would seem good enough for me. Between rent, food, bars, clothes, tuition, I think whether they stay or not is not important.

Jay Thomas

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

I think Mary Sue cares more about getting a nice raise than whether or not Michiganders can get into the U. Bottom line.

aabikes

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.

I would stamp a big&quot;FALSE&quot; on that.
Hasn't she been donating her raises for several years now? Effectively refusing them?

Lewanster

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

Well...duh...they get more money from out of state students. Until UM starts accepting more Michigan students, they should not be getting our tax money.

TopCat08

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.

That's a good idea... since receive SO much tax money.
Then in-state students will stop having their educations subsidized by all the full-freight out-of-state students... and then no one will go... Great plan.

johnnya2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.

You do realize that each of those out of state students SAVES and MAKES the state of Michigan far more than the state gives to UM? I can not imagine many of these students commute. so that is out of state dollars into rentals, which pay property taxes. All of them buy food, clothing, books which bring revenue to the state of Michigan. Many drive cars and buy gas (more revenue). They also do not qualify for state sponsored financial aid, so that is outside money flowing into the Michigan economy.
I wonder if we should stop allowing out of state drivers to use our tax money when they drive on our roads? Is that your position? Be consistent. Many Ohio residents drive on a Michigan road, and many oof our roads have traffic jams. Should we ban them from those roads to help &quot;save&quot; money.
Finally, Michigan is LOSING residents. Would it be logical to bring a person from another state to Ann Arbor, have them see that Michigan is a good place to live and maybe start a business here, meet the love of their life here, or actually WANT to stay here? Isolationism NEVER works.

Goober

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.

I propose that UM should be released as a state unversity with no ties to Michigan other than location. They would then be free to attract the students they desire, would not receive any Michigan tax payer funds, pay Michigan taxes themselves, etc. The problem of not accepting the highest percentage of Michigan resident students would then be solved.
They could even change their name to something like UNU - United Nations University, or WU - World University, or ECRKU - East Coast Rich Kid University.

johnnya2

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2 p.m.

1. &quot;problem of not accepting the highest percentage of Michigan resident students&quot;
Quite frankly, it is NOT a problem, so there is no solution needed
2. Other than that whole constitution thing. Funny how people scream about the constitution, then when it does not serve their needs they want to change it.
3. What happened to MERIT in the eyes of the right wingers? If an out of state student is a better student, then why should a Michigan resident get preferential treatment? Are you for affirmative action for Michigan students because they can not compete with out-of state students?

Goober

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.

The way I see it is that if you live in Michigan, UM does not want you. They would rather raise the bar, create more excuses and chase higher tuition paying out-of-state students to protect the high UM wages and benefits.
This is just not right for a Michigan state university that receives Michigan tax payer funds.

Evan Smith

Fri, Oct 26, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.

I just did the math, the acceptance rate for residents of Michigan is 53%, the acceptance rate for non-residents is 30%. To claim &quot;if you live in Michigan, UM does not want you&quot; is simply not true.

drut_ferguson

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

High UM wages? Know how I know you don't work for UM?

Evan Smith

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

&quot;State funds have fallen by 15% over the last decade&quot;
Its actually worse than that when you consider inflation adjusted money per student. Over the last decade, it has literally been cut in half.
The state of Michigan no longer cares about its universities.

alan

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

Every time they post a story like this they get similar comments. State funding is about 7-8% of the university budget. State appropriations are intended to be a tuition subsidy for in state students. About 25,000 undergrads, 2/3 in state, each getting a tuition reduction of about $25,000 means the state appropriation of about $350M doesn't cover their reduced tuition. State funds have fallen by 15% over the last decade. Every reduction of $25K in state funding is one more in state kid who can't go there. The exact same thing is happening at MSU. They've gone from 95% in-state to somewhere around 80% and the trend continues. As for high wages and benefits, the data doesn't support that assertion. They have incredibly low cost of benefits through careful management and wages are actually rather low compared to other universities of similar reputation (with a much higher student-faculty ratio also). Of course, there is the whole discussion of what should someone earn with 10 or more years of college education. On average, they earn a whole lot less that they could earn elsewhere.

smokeblwr

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.

Well, you can't argue that rich out of state students aren't good for the economy. They spend money like crazy. All that new construction for those fancy student high rises and craft beer hangouts is a direct result of East Coast Money.
Also, the increasing number of out of state students probably directly correlates to the sparsely populated student section at the football games.

smokeblwr

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.

I said &quot;Money&quot; not &quot;monies&quot;. Who says &quot;monies&quot;?

drut_ferguson

Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.

You certainly seem happy with these East Coast monies. I'm beginning to suspect that you yourself are from OUT OF STATE!